Monday, May 30, 2011

When I first started blogging four years ago, I firmly believed that most of the rigid/delusional thinking in politics was on the right; the far-right, specifically. I mean, how could I have NOT gotten that impression; Hannity, Limbaugh, Robertson, Falwell (God rest that miserable bastard's soul, huh?)?..................................................................................................But, I'm telling you, now that I've been doing this for a while, I can tell you, unequivocally, that there is just as much predictable partisanship and lunacy on the far-left (at least in the frigging blogosphere, I'm saying) as there is on the far-right. I mean, just in terms of policy, I'm saying - just as the far-right wants to solve every societal problem with a tax-cut, the far-left wants to solve that same societal problem with a new government program and/or a buffering of an existing one.....................................................................................................And some of the other stuff that gets thrown around is equally numbing; 90% top tax rates, compulsory voting, compulsory unionization (every business with over 50 employees MUST have a union, whether the workers want it or not), a Great Britain style single-payer health-care system, super-duper/mega protectionism, pie-in-the-sky minimum wage rates, etc., etc.. That, and they never want to negotiate/concede ANYTHING. I'm telling you here, when Matt Stone of "South Park" said that he "hated conservatives, but that he REALLY hated liberals", he had to be referring to this crew and their moral/intellectual superiority. I mean, come on, folks, even my kitty will wiggle eventually.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

America. The American flag. Liberty. Freedom from tyranny and oppressive government. The inalienable right of all men and women to live their life as they see fit, in so long as they respect the same rights inherent in others. The right to opportunity for all, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender. Recognition that with the liberty and freedoms enunciated in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States comes individual and personal responsibility to ensure their continued existence for all posterity. The belief that our republican form of government was instituted to ensure the protection of the minority against the potential tyranny of the majority. The understanding that government is but a necessary evil, put in place only as a watchdog to insure that the rights of each individual is respected and protected in so long as they do no injury to the inalienable rights of others. Acceptance of the principle that speech is a protected right of all, particularly when it is offense politically to any certain political ideology. An understanding and eventual acceptance that while our founding fathers made the conscious decision to continue slavery, thereby forever coloring their enlightened belief in the principals specified in the Declaration of Independence there did so to insure the cementing of the republic. Accepting that as society is driven by the need to adapt to modern realities it will do so. Understanding that as Americans we share a common interest. At least we should.

Please forgive the size of the preceding paragraph. While it is perhaps grammatically too lengthy its content is never the less cohesive and interconnecting. It also defines what I, and Rational Nation USA stands for. My message has been consistent. It as always been about the PRINCIPALS set forth in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, regardless of the obvious hypocrisy the progressive left continually points out to justify their America hating agenda. Rather than understanding the truths on which the fundamental principals of our founding documents were founded they expend their efforts to attempting to tear them down. When they succeed America itself will come down with them.

Rational Nation USA has given nearly two years to the cause of liberty and individual freedom. The effort has far exceeded the rewards. After well over 1200 posts the fuel required to burn the flame of liberty is growing depleted. The energy greatly diminished in the face of the current collectivist onslaught that is gripping America. Age and other responsibilities has taken its toll.

I will continue to fight for liberty, when the collectivist statist knock on my front door. Until then the proprietor, and Editor in Chief of Rational Nation USA is going on an extended vacation.

Have a Great Memorial Day for those who actually still understand what it stands for.

To the Future. May it be a better than the immediate past or the current realities. That of course will be up to EACH INDIVIDUAL! Progressive collectivists please take note.

So long, long live the republic, and hold true to real bona fide conservative principles. You know, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Given it is a holiday weekend, as well as a rather slow day with respect to any real noteworthy political items, I decided to visit the Ludwig Van Mises Institute. Looking for something of interest on economic theory and or policy I found this video on Keynesian predictions. The subject matter starts just past the five minute mark.

Rational Nation USA is not a supporter of a Palin run for the presidency, often taking heat from the Palinistas. With respect to the forgoing video clip all that need be said is SPOT ON!

Continue to spread the message of liberty and fiscal responsibility Sarah, and get behind a true libertarian/conservative candidate that can drive national debate in the direction it so desperately needs to go.

I continue to be amused by the irrational hatred progressives have toward any and all things Rand and 18th century classical liberals held to be valid, which is to say true. One would think progressives would be the first to defend the individual against the immoral tyranny of a collective mob, which is to say the unrestrained power of the state.

Present day progressives, as well as neo-cons, rather than defending the individual and standing strong for liberty, the liberty each and every individual regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender has the right to enjoy, place their "faith" in the state to determine what is best for each individual based on collective reasoning. They either fail to grasp the contradiction or they recognize it and simply use it both as a shield and a sword.

Each individual can make up his or her own mind on whether Rand and 18th century enlightened and rational thinkers and philosophers were right. Or...., they can decide to accept today's group think anti individual statist mentality and see how that works out for them when it reaches its natural and ultimate end.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Can somebody please explain to me why Todd Bertuzzi is still playing hockey? No, wait, let me rephrase that. Can somebody please explain to me why Todd Bertuzzi isn't in prison?.................................................................................................For those of you who don't remember, Mr. Bertuzzi committed one of the most vicious cheap shots in the history of a sport that, well, let's face it here, has a long and bloody history of them. It took place March 8, 2004 and the victim was a player by the of name Steve Moore. Specifically, folks, Bertuzzi skated up from behind Mr. Moore (who never saw him coming) and clocked him in the right temple, knocking him out immediately. And that, God damn it, was just the frigging punch. The landing, in which Mr. Moore's head bounced several times like a coconut - THAT was what did the major damage (three fractured vertebrae in the neck).......................................................................................................Of course, what was almost as outrageous as the assault, was the National Hockey League's anemic response to it. They gave Mr. Bertuzzi a 20 game suspension. 20 games for ruining a person - nice, huh? Or, look at it this way, folks. Bertuzzi got the identical punishment that former Texas Rangers' baseball pitcher, Kenny Rogers got. The only difference is that Rogers punched out a camera. A ruined camera or a ruined human being (yes, Mr. Moore is still recovering from this)? You make the call.

The President of the United States of America, and leader of the "free world", {such as it is} has completed his six day juggernaut through the "Islamic Spring" {yeah right! Whatever that means in English} and socialist Europe. Our president was greeted with great adulation and reverence. It was as to be expected from the deteriorating economies of socialist Europe.

One stand out however was Lech Walesa, leader of the Polish Solidarity movement and first President of Poland after it gained liberty from the ex Soviet Union. Recognizing the stench of socialism {aka communism} he declined the invitation to meet with the U.S. President. Perhaps those who are experiencing the love fest of Obamaism ought to consider the experience of one who actually lived through, and fought the tyranny of socialism.

My 59 year educated guess... the world will continue to remain enamored of the American President's vision of "Hope and Change." Which of course to all people of reason is simply the code for the further socialization of not only Europe, but the United States as well. Is it any wonder that the socialist minded Europeans gave such a warm welcome to the most progressive socialist minded United States President to ever have visited Europe? One who embraces the very policies that have resulted in the economic decline of European nations.

If I sound partisan it is, of course, because I am. Partisan in favor of liberty, free and unencumbered thought absent of political correctness, the rule of constitutional law, the right of individuals to retain the rewards of their honest labor, the right of all persons to be judged on the merits of their productive contributions rather than their race or ethnicity. In short, to judge all by a purely objective standard. Precisely as the Reverend Martin Luther King.

The life sucking tentacles of progressive socialism, even in the face of obvious and proven utter failure continues to enamor the people of the world. While many would disagree, the socialist collectivist majority continues to sell the empty and destructive premise that as an individual you amount to nothing. However, in the mind of the socialist collectivist you have the power of the collective to change the social fiber of nations.

Of course this is a fallacy. But dare not utter the truth, lest you have thick skin and a unwavering belief in the rightness of your course. The adherents of progressive collectivism, the likes of which Lech Wałęsa stood against are alive and well in the United States and are being driven by the Obama administration and its well positioned and wealthy handlers.

My hat's off to Lech Walesa, as should be the hat of every American who values liberty and the right of self determination. The progressive collectivist onslaught against individual liberties and the right of self determination will continue unabated. It will be those in the liberty movement that will, through diligence and our unshakable belief in the rights of the individual as embodied in our Constitutions that will ultimately insure our freedoms are protected.

The President, who was away from his office when the bill extending the Patriot Act was due to expire used the "auto pen" to sign S.990. Representative Tom Graves (R-GA., recognizing the President had technically violated Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution {is this a surprise to anyone?} has written a letter asking the President to confirm he actually had read the bill prior to its auto pen signing.

The applicable wording of Article 1 Section 7 as it applies to this concern reads as follows:

"Every order, resolution, or vote to which concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him him..."

Below is a reproduction Representative Grave's letter.

As the bill was passed into law on Thursday May 26'th while the President was out of the country the concern is legitimate. If for no other reason than it could set precedent.

Given current technology it is certainly plausible the President received the bill's language by either by fax or internet. It is right that the auto signing was brought to question by the astute representative. Our government officials, even, and especially the President, must live by the rule of law. In this instance the United States Constitution.

The following time lapsed video is amazing. There are few words than can describe just how awesome it is. The following from POPSCI.

...The video below was captured by Stephane Guisard and Jose Francisco Salgado at the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile’s Atacama Desert. And it might make you cry.

What makes this time lapse particularly amazing--because we’ve all seen plenty of time lapse videos of the night sky--is the four telescopes in the foreground. Watching these instruments work against a black background would be endlessly fascinating on its own. Unfortunately you won’t be able to pay them too much attention. Because damn, what a sky.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

As our government continues to deficit spend, what, 40% of every dollar?, the bill that is yet-to-come comes with a state and federal combined price tag of 62%. Sure sounds like a European socialist basket case economic scenario, doesn't it?

If the Democrats' millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s.

What is particularly worrisome about this trend is the deterioration of the U.S. tax position relative to the rest of our economic rivals. In 1990, the highest individual income tax rate of our major economic trading partners was 51%, while the U.S. was much lower at 33%. It's no wonder that during the 1980s and '90s the U.S. created more than twice as many new jobs as Japan and Western Europe combined.

And a solution? No more, says Moore:

Perhaps there can still be a happy ending to this sad tale of U.S. decline. If there were ever a right time to trade in the junk heap of our federal tax code for a pro-growth Steve Forbes-style flat tax, now's the time.

Where is our Steve Forbes-like candidate?

We shouldn't be surprised that our government is run by Robin Hood-wanna-be economic illiterates.

After all, "fairness" is the catch-all phrase for socialism from the socialist movement's Manchurian Candidate, titular economic-illiterate head:

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

There is absolutely no question that if this nation elects to continue on our current irresponsible and unsustainable fiscal path raising taxes on everybody will be become a necessity.

Video:

Of course Stockman is speaking from the perspective of a true progressive. He, like all progressives simply believes in the right of the federal governments to confiscate the fruits of every individual's labor to whatever level the government deems necessary to support its spending habits. It does not matter how irrational those spending habits may be.

If this nation simply closed tax loopholes for the very wealthy and large corporations, implemented a fat tax system, ended government subsidies to corporations {corporate welfare}, reigned in the MIC {military industrial complex} spending to only what is necessary to defend this nation and our true allies, discontinue global foreign welfare, eliminate duplicity in government programs and cut ineffective and unnecessary domestic programs, end the seemingly never ending and costly war on drugs, enforce our borders thereby stopping illegal immigration and its intendant cost to the nation, and stop raiding social security and leaving IOU's in place of real money. The foregoing would be a huge beginning on the road to fiscal responsibility.

However, neither the democrats or the republicans are going to do anything serious on this front. The simple truths are this, the American people really do want their cake and eat it too. and both parties are primarily concerned about either returning to, or staying in power. Ultimately we will keep driving towards the economic abyss. The republicans will get us their and the democrats will get it there perhaps a little sooner.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks the simple truth. The reality is the Palestinian leadership has always refused to accept Israel's right to exit and in fact pursued a policy of terrorism against Israel.

I just want to tell the GOP candidates currently running for the 2012 Presidency to STOP. You don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.

According to the Left, EVERY GOP candidate is a stupid jackass and should go crawl under a rock, because none of them can walk and chew gum at the same time, let alone comb their own hair! And forget about speaking! They sound like Elmo with a wad of gum and crackers in their mouth, plus they can’t pronounce anything correctly. How could any of them stand up to Obama—the genius? He’ll wipe the floor with all of them at a debate, at the same time, with both of his hands tied behind his back, his eyes closed and his mouth duct taped!

We heard for years that Bush was a complete and utter moron even though he graduated from Yale. But that was ONLY because Daddy Bush purchased his grades! The man couldn’t pronounce nuclear, for Pete’s sake! Never mind that Obama mispronounced corpsman, not once, but two times…that was the teleprompter’s fault! The man went to Harvard! He’s a walking Einstein. No, we don’t have a clue what his IQ is or his grades at Harvard, but that doesn’t matter, and how dare you even ask, you racist! Look at him walk! He’s awesome! He reeks of awesomeness and if the Republican candidates even dream of defeating him, they are either certifiably insane or on drugs and the MSM will be all over that in a New York minute!

Don’t forget that Obama is the American dream come true, because he gave us Hope and Change. I know we’re still hoping the economy will turn around and the unemployment rate will change to below 9% and people will find jobs and stop losing their homes. But that’s Bush’s fault! I realize we’re hoping gasoline prices will fall, but Bush and his oil buddies don’t have enough money yet…those greedy bastards! And if we hoped enough, these things would change. If Bush would just go away all the hopey-changey-happy-feely would transpire!

People need to get their heads out of their butts and just look at Obama! He walks, talks, stands, stares and even stutters awesomely! There is NO way that sappy Gingrich is going to beat HIM! And Bachmann, oh right. That woman is so stupid— she can’t tell the difference between our Constitution and the Dictionary! But Obama, he’s a friggin’ Constitutional Scholar!

In short, the GOP sucks. They are ALL scum-sucking-heartless-granny-killing-poverty-inducing-rich-loving-brainless-wackjobs and should be thrown out on their ears. The party should be abolished because it’s useless! It hasn’t done a damn thing right in decades! It bankrupted this country with its deregulation and tax cuts for the evil rich.

So, GOP candidates, beware if you decide to continue down this path. It will be at your peril. Obama has it in the bag already…he’s a sure winner. His awesomeness will be the clincher! So, if you can find and buy yourself some awesomeness, do it, or else…

**Parody post, in case you didn’t know. I just had to write this considering I’ve been reading how the GOP candidates are being ripped apart already due to their appearance or their accent…and of course, every one of them are utter dolts, according to the Left. I have yet to hear one based on policy, which is what I thought it was about. I’m hoping it’s only because we still have a lot of time before 2012, because I’d hate to debate the Left on these non-issues, they are really silly.**

I don’t know what strategic purpose Obama had in mind for addressing the Middle East impasse when last Thursday he made the first of a series of speeches on the subject. Whatever this may have been, that speech produced one satisfactory result. The Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, for once started to tell the west a few home truths about what it was doing.

With the world’s cameras trained upon him and looking Israel’s potential nemesis in the eye, Netanyahu at last did what he and other Israeli prime ministers should have done a long time ago. He seized the moment, and used the presence of the icily immobilised President to speak electrifyingly over his head to the American people and the world about the likely terrible consequences for Israel of the President’s policy. He began to strip away the pretence, to tear off the fig-leaf. This President’s stated policy would destroy Israel’s existential security. It’s a message the American people need to hear, over and over again.

This morning, the consequences were already plain. Obama had shifted his position. Not much, but enough to demonstrate one crucial fact: that Israel’s most potent weapon of all is the truth, and when it chooses to wield that weapon its tormentors begin to crumble.

‘The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.’

Here’s the thing. Obama spoke correctly when he referred to the ‘1967 lines’ rather than ‘borders’. There are no 1967 borders. Israel actually has no borders. All it has are the 1949 ceasefire lines, which is where Israel was left when it fought off the attempt by five Arab armies to exterminate it at birth. These lines were referred to as the ‘Auschwitz borders’ because within them no country could possibly defend itself against its enemies. They left Israel at its narrowest point a mere nine miles wide -- as Netanyahu said, less than the Washington Beltway. A return to the 1967 lines would mean exposing Israel once more to the likelihood of destruction, and such a proposal runs counter to the spirit and the letter of UN Resolution 242. True Obama added ‘with land swaps’. But no realistic land swaps could make up for this fatal vulnerability. {Read More}

As the American President throws the Jewish people under the bus, a people who deserve our respect, admiration, and support, the American people ought to speak loudly AGAINST the position of Barrack Hussein Obama with respect to his treatment of our true mid eastern ally.

"No people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and virtue is preservd. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign Invaders." --Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, 1775

The billionaire business mogul phoned into Fox News' "Fox & Friends" this morning to lament the state of the Republican field. He took issue with Mike Huckabee exiting the race, saying he's sure Huckabee could win and he's still sure he could have won.

Trump refused to rule out a late entry into the Republican presidential field.

"Who knows if I did the right thing," he said. "I am not seeing a lot out of the Republican candidates."

Asked if there's any chance he'll jump in later in the race, Trump replied, "I can't rule out anything ... [It's] vital that we choose the right person, and at this moment, I don't see that person." {The Rest}

Is he in? No, he's out, Wait, he's a maybe!

Come on dude, make up your mind. You're displaying a bit of indecision. Reminds me of "The One." To this guy it really is all just a game.

Guess which former President is Jimmy Carter’s favorite? Three guesses:

Former President Jimmy Carter isn’t letting modesty stand in the way of his assessment of his post-presidential life.

“I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents,” Mr. Carter said in an interview with NBC News.

Apparently, even Carter realized a little later how bad that sounded. He contacted NBC to amend his remarks to say that his role with a non-profit organization gave him “superior opportunities to do good.” In other words, he’s extremely fortunate that someone created the Carter Center after he left office. And who was the masked man who did that? Er ….

Carter actually started off his post-presidential era well, working with Habitat for Humanity to build homes for the poor. Unfortunately, he rapidly became one of the most destructive former presidents this country has ever had by interfering with American foreign policy long after the voters of this country explicitly told him they didn’t want him conducting it any more. His interference stopped Bill Clinton from dealing more decisively with North Korea, which gave Kim Jong-Il the time he needed to construct nuclear weapons. He has muddied up the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by cheering Hamas, a group that has earned its place on the US list of terrorist organizations. He’s given Republican and Democratic Presidents alike reason enough to pray that someone builds Carter a Habitat for Humanity home that locks from the outside.

I’m tempted to play Mac Davis’ It’s Hard To Be Humble, but that’s too obvious. Instead, let’s turn this over to Chesney Hawkes, another one-hit wonder (at least in the US) with a penchant for self-promoting paeans:

Update: I got this by e-mail this morning and didn’t realize it was eight months old. Actually, I’m not sure how I missed it in September. Anyway, I doubt Carter has changed his mind in the last eight months, but my apologies for not making the date clear in the beginning.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is absolutely correct in his position to stand firm on the pre 1967 border issue. President Obama is dead wrong on this one as he throws our only democratic ally in the mid east under the bus.

But no doubt the left around the world will find his pro Pan Arab, Palestinian sympathies and appeasement attractive. Whether the President's decisions are the result of his being naive, or ill informed remains to be seen. In any case it is obvious that he does not value the Jewish people.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must accept U.S. President Obama's vision for Mideast peace if talks with the Palestinian Authority are to resume, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Sunday.

Erekat's comments came in response to Israel's rejection of the U.S. president's support of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, with Netanyahu saying that such a move would make Israel's borders "indefensible."

Erekat: Netanyahu must accept Obama peace guidelines for talks to resume
Chief negotiator Palestinians share the same principles laid out by U.S. President, including 1967 borders as basis for future Palestinian state.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must accept U.S. President Obama's vision for Mideast peace if talks with the Palestinian Authority are to resume, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Sunday.

Erekat's comments came in response to Israel's rejection of the U.S. president's support of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders, with Netanyahu saying that such a move would make Israel's borders "indefensible."
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat

Earlier Sunday, Netanyahu's top security adviser, Yaakov Amidror, reiterated the objection to a return to 1967 borders, saying that those borders would leave "too many Israelis out of Israel."

Speaking to the Kuwaiti news agency KUNA on Sunday, Erekat said that an Israeli acceptance of Obama's guidelines was essential if stalled negotiations were to resume, saying that as far as the Palestinians were concerned peace talks "actually aim at realizing this [Obamas'] objective, the establishment of the independent Palestinian state with these borders, along with swap of territories."

"Now, Erekat said, "we would like to hear from Netanyahu about his stance regarding this principle, declared by President Obama."

As a sign of what he said was Israel's rejection to the principles stated in Obama's speech, Erekat slammed the Israeli decision to approve 1,500 homes in East Jerusalem ahead of his travel to the U.S. last Friday.

Referring to Netanyahu's planned speech before AIPAC, the powerful U.S. pro-Israel lobby, Erekat said: "If Netanyahu continues to reject the theme of establishing two independent states, it will be senseless to continue the talk about peace."

"The recognition of the Palestinian state is a sovereign issue for every state," he added.

It really bothers me to have to go there. I mean it really, really, really bothers me. The reason? Because no one, especially an American citizen should ever feel the need to go there.

You ask, were exactly is that? To which I must reply to fight tyranny in our own democratic republic. But sadly, because of republican statists like GWB, and the current statist BO,iberty minded individuals have but little choice to go there in defense of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Our Statist in Chief, after ram rodding his so called health care reform down the throats of all Americans, has saw fit to exempt his cronies from comply with the very law he and his statist cronies foisted upon all of America.

I refer to "The Waivers." that exempt those granted said waiver from complying with ObamaCare. Presently there have been over 1,000 waivers granted to Obama cronies.

Selective enforcement of the law is the first sign of tyranny. A government empowered to determine arbitrarily who may operate outside the rule of law invariably embraces favoritism as friends, allies and those with the best-funded lobbyists are rewarded. Favoritism inevitably leads to corruption, and corruption invites extortion. Ultimately, the rule of law ceases to exist in any recognizable form, and what is left is tyranny.

America’s founders rejected that road to tyranny when they boldly declared that all men are created equal. They wrote a Constitution meant to secure the promise of equal protection under the law.

President Obama, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats all, in their rush to take over America’s health care system, made all sorts of outlandish, unkeepable promises. Among the most egregious: Obamacare would allow you to keep your current health insurance and your doctor. Mr. Obama’s own Medicare chief actuary now acknowledges that Obamacare may cause up to 20 million Americans to lose their current health insurance policies, and doctors are increasingly leaving Medicare, Medicaid and the practice of medicine altogether. Good luck keeping them. Another unkeepable promise: Obamacare “will create 4 million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately.” The Congressional Budget Office’s budget director estimates the law actually will destroy 800,000 jobs.

Obamacare’s chickens, to borrow a phrase our president may have heard somewhere before, are coming home to roost. The law, as currently adjudicated, has been ruled unconstitutional. The president’s own secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, has admitted a major section of the Obamacare law is “totally unsustainable.” Before casting his vote in favor of Obamacare, Sen. Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat, described it as “a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.” Well, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Madoff certainly would be proud of you and your colleagues. {Read More}

We are indeed witnessing the tyranny of the progressives as we begin the second decade of the 21'st century. Tyranny looks and smells the same regardless from whence it comes.

Wow! Who would have thought the socialist Canadian government would be to the right of the United States? Oh yeah, almost forgot, BHO is the leader of the soon to be Socialist United States of America. So, I guess it really isn't so surprising after all.

While our dunderhead-ed historically blind president wants to roll back the borders of Israel to a pre 1967 status Canada's government is correctly calling for a settlement based on terms negotiated by the Israelis and the Palestinians...

The Harper government is refusing to join the United States in calling for a return to 1967 borders as a starting point for Mideast peace, a position that has drawn sharp criticism from Canada’s staunch ally Israel.

At a briefing ahead of the upcoming G8 summit in France, federal officials said the basis for the negotiations must be mutually agreed upon.

Israel quickly rejected U.S. President Barack Obama’s proposal for the talks to be guided by the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps.

“What the government of Canada supports is basically a two-state solution that is negotiated,” a senior federal official said. “If it’s border, if it’s others issues, it has to be negotiated, it cannot be unilateral action.”

Pressed by reporters, federal officials said both the Israelis and the Palestinians have to decide on their bottom lines, which the Israelis have said will not include a return to the 1967 border.

“If the two parties are of the view that this is a starting point, that is fine for them,” said the federal official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The Prime Minister’s director of communications, Dimitri Soudas, added that Canada’s position continues to be the search for a two-state solution.

“No solution, ultimately, is possible without both parties sitting down, negotiating and agreeing on what that final outcome will look like,” he said.

Mr. Obama boosted Palestinian hopes for an independent state during a speech by pointedly calling on Israel to regard its 1967 borders as the basis for a neighbouring Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank.

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states,” Mr. Obama said Thursday – apparently the first time a U.S. president has drawn a line in the sand by publicly using the “1967 lines” phrase. {Read More}

Is it just me or is it obvious to others that BO is heavily biased towards the Palestinian/Arab agenda? A president whose father was a Muslim and one who lived a significant share of his early life exposed to the Muslim culture.

Obamites everywhere will no doubt support the president's pro Palestinian/Pan Arab agenda. They will do so at the expense of the only middle eastern democracy and true U.S. ally. They will do so simply because he is the first American president of color. And they will do so because they are blind to realities.

At least Canada, as socialistic as they are, has retained a modicum of rationality devoid of present day political correctness. I for one applaud their common sense. Our own president ought to take Canada's position as a positive example on this issue.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

President Obama is either high on opiates or he really does think he is above the law. The 1973 War Powers Act is quite specific and it does limit the president's ability to to spend the nation's resources at will on military action against another sovereign state without congressional approval or a formal declaration of war.

As BO approaches the deadline he and his statist legal team are attempting to make the feeble case that the action in Libya is so limited it does not not require congressional approval for continuation. Here is what the president said in a letter to Congress today:

...President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”

Anyone who understands the War Powers Act, and the role of the Congress ought to smell an executive power grab. This certainly reeks of it.

Further:

A senior administration official told ABC News that the letter is intended to describe “a narrow US effort that is intermittent and principally an effort to support to support the ongoing NATO-led and UN-authorized civilian support mission and no fly zone.”

“The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”

From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21. Those 60 days expire today. {Read More}

Obama apparently believe he can have his cake and eat it too. So typical of the progressive statists, rather they be colored blue or red. This is just another attempt by the statist left to push the envelope. What Obama seeks is unbridled power. The only question that remains is whether a compliant and statist congress will oblige him.

Make no mistake, if BO wins this one all future statist regimes, whether they be democratic or republican will use the precedent to further their own agenda with respect to the foreign intervention of {their} choice.

Based on the erratic endorsement and subsequent non-endorsement -- not to mention the shady character involved -- Gary Johnson has nothing to lose in losing Willie Nelson's endorsement. However, we must not allow Governor Johnson's run to be swallowed up by a media-led version of a Cheech and Chong sequel, in which all anyone cares about vis-à-vis Johnson is his stance on marijuana. Instead, we should be highlighting the former governor's untarnished fiscal-conservative bona fides.

(SNIP)

A President Gary Johnson would bring to the White House the same focus, seriousness, and provable results that he did from New Mexico. Nevertheless, proven fiscal-conservative accomplishments may be cast aside by the 24-hour-news-cycle, "the-more-salacious-the-better" mainstream media.

If you have long wondered about just what it might be that is part of the the problem with America today you need look no further than radicalized progressivism. Or more accurately stated liberal fascism.

One of the most glaring examples of liberal fascism I have seen recently can be found at This progressive website. It would be almost scary were it not so laughingly irrational, and shrouded in the thick fog of progressivism.

The scum in Wisconsin's Senate chamber killed democracy today by voting for the controversial voter ID bill. The good people of Wisconsin are outraged, Democrats are outraged, and the fucking Nazi's in Wisconsin are on the march. They know their days are numbered so they are passing every measure they can to insure the voters of Wisconsin are tilted in their favor. This is fascism at it's finest, it's beyond despicable... {Read More}

It is my guess the author of this rabidly hateful article {no doubt the author is projecting} graduated from the ultra-liberal University of Wisconsin at Madison. Or some other extremely left leaning liberal arts university.

At any rate does anyone believe it possible to find common ground, or even a remote possibility of compromise with individuals such as this? I certainly know where I come down in answer to that question.

Fascism is a despicable centralized economic and political system. One which the progresses
frequently use to paint republicans specifically and conservatives generally with. They ought to look in the mirror. Real hard.

The President is very close to being in violation of the 1973 War Powers Act. May 21st marks the sixtieth day since BHO made the decision to involve the United States in the Libyan civil war. The act says specifically... "if the president does not get congressional authorization 60 days after military action, the mission must stop within 30 days."

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama may be on the brink of breaking the law.

At issue: The 1973 War Powers Act, which says if the president does not get congressional authorization 60 days after military action, the mission must stop within 30 days.

The president formally notified Congress about the mission in Libya with a letter on March 21, which makes Friday the 60-day deadline.

Inaction is angering lawmakers from both the left and the right who rarely agree on anything.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, tells CNN he believes Obama is trying to "bring democracy to Libya while shredding the Constitution of the United States."

"He cannot continue what he is doing in Libya without congressional authorization. When a president defiantly violates the law, that really undercuts our efforts to urge other countries to have the rule of law," Sherman said.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, concurs.

"You could say, 'Well, we have a good president, he'll do the right thing.' Well, someday you may have a president who does the wrong thing, and that's why you have rules, because you can never count on people being good people," Paul told CNN.

He called it "appalling" and a "terrible precedent" to engage in military action without the people's representatives -- Congress -- debating it. {Read More}

CNN Video:

Could this be yet another case of a statist leader attempting to push out the goal posts defining the limits of his power? I wonder given his belief in highly centralized federal power. Especially with himself at the top of the pyramid.

... The Rapture -- the belief that Christ will bring the faithful into paradise prior to a period of tribulation on earth that precedes the end of time -- is a relatively new notion compared to Christianity itself, and most Christians don't believe in it. And even believers rarely attempt to set a date for the event.

Camping's prophecy comes from numerological calculations based on his reading of the Bible, and he says global events like the 1948 founding of Israel confirm his math.

He has been derided for an earlier apocalyptic prediction in 1994, but his followers say that merely referred to the end of "the church age," a time when human beings in Christian churches could be saved. Now, they say, only those outside what they regard as irredeemably corrupt churches can expect to ascend to heaven.

Camping is not hedging this time: "Beyond the shadow of a doubt, May 21 will be the date of the Rapture and the day of judgment," he said in January.

Such predictions are nothing new, but Camping's latest has been publicized with exceptional vigor -- not just by Family Radio but through like-minded groups. They've spread the word using radio, satellite TV, daily website updates, billboards, subway ads, RV caravans hitting dozens of cities and missionaries scattered from Latin America to Asia.

"These kinds of prophecies are constantly going on at a low level, and every once in a while one of them gets traction," said Richard Landes, a Boston University history professor who has studied such beliefs for more than 20 years.

The prediction has been publicized in almost every country, said Chris McCann, who works with eBible Fellowship, one of the groups spreading the message. "The only countries I don't feel too good about are the `stans' -- you know, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, those countries in Central Asia," he said.

Marie Exley, who left her home in Colorado last year to join Family Radio's effort to publicize the message, just returned from a lengthy overseas trip that included stops in the Middle East. She said billboards have gone up in Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.

"I decided to spend the last few days with my immediate family and fellow believers," Exley said. "Things started getting more risky in the Middle East when Judgment Day started making the news. {Read More}

Thankfully life will go on and the sun will rise on the 22'nd of May in the year 2011.

Several Facebook groups urge a third mass popular uprising against Israel, and one of them sports a "Friday of response" page, bearing the date May 20. The page, which currently has 100,000 "Like's", does not however give any details on how or exactly when these marches should take place.

Still, various reports in the Arab media, including in al-Jazeera, suggest that activists in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon plan to march on the Israel's borders; and that Palestinians from Gaza Strip and the West Bank are also expected to stage such marches.

Can there be any doubt but what the speech by Barrack Hussein Obama yesterday will only serve to embolden those whose goal is the destruction of the State if Israel? Or put more graphically the annihilation of an entire people? Once again BHO is proving himself to be the adversary of the only democratic nation in the Middle East and our only true ally in the region. His overt move to appease the Palestinians specifically, and the Arab generally is either naive or stupid. History will be the ultimate judge.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Early this week I wrote a piece about Ron Paul and defense issues that got published at American Thinker. This surprised me as it was a bit provocative and covers the taboo topic -- especially among Republican circles -- of cutting the Defense Department and realigning our priorities at home and abroad.

It's my first article at American Thinker. Could you please read the piece, let me know what you think, link and comment if you can?

Here's the opener and link after the excerpt:

Ron Paul's Controversial Statement Exposes Foreign Policy Rift

By Tim Daniel

Tea party favorite and libertarian stalwart Congressman Ron Paul fanned the flames of controversy last week, stating to WHO radio's Simon Conway that he in fact would not have ordered the Osama bin Laden kill, preferring, rather, an arrest and civilian-court trial for the 9-11 mastermind. Paul's statement was met with full-throated derision in GOP circles as the "crazy uncle in the attic" became all-the-crazier with his simple admission.Pulling the curtain away from the issue, did Ron Paul simply expose a giant chasm between two foreign policy trains of thought in the...

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Here, folks, is another example of what I consider rank dishonesty coming from Maddow. On her first day of covering that special NY 26th race, she made a humongous deal about how the Democratic candidate was 5 points ahead of the Republican candidate in what has historically been a Republican district (she also credited the Republican's support of the Ryan plan for the situation). "Hm, that's interesting", I'm thinking............................................................................................................Of course, it wasn't until 2 hours later that I learned that there was also a 3rd party candidate in that race - A TEA PARTY CANDIDATE!!!! - a tea party candidate who has no doubt been sucking votes away from the Republican. Granted, she has since acknowledged the existence of this candidate, but 24 hours after she initiated the story!.....Add to that the fact that she STILL hasn't acknowledged that the Democratic candidate in this race is infinitely more MY type of Democrat than it it is hers (a major league blue-dog, in other words) and, yeah, you really DO have to question this woman's honesty/integrity............................................................................................................Bottom-line, folks, it isn't just the Hannitys and Limbaughs on the planet who are pulling this "sticking firm to the narrative" bull-crap. The progressives - they be holding their own toasties, large!!

My favorite part of the video is at the 4:15 mark. Nick Gillespie asks National Review's Kevin Williamson, "what's the continuing romance of socialism?" Williamson simply responds, "I think it is a form of perpetual adolescence..."

This truism -- the perpetual adolescence of advocates of socialism, especially in academia and the youth -- is absolutely spot on and something that I have witnessed over and over first hand. Socialist proponents (who hide under the veil of "progressive" today) exist in a pre-pubescent fairy-tale-land of candy-pooping unicorns and government-commanded utopia. "Just give up this freedom, here, and everything will be taken care of," they whisper in our ears. Too many of us fall for the ploy.

It's too bad that history is littered with the dead bodies, misery and poverty (both economically and spiritually) that socialism ushers in.

It's doubly frightful that we seem to have not learned from said history, or -- eve worse -- are willfully ignoring it in favor of a pie-in-the-sky adolescent vision -- a vision that both you and I know will have the precise same historical outcome here in the United States.

What's the real definition of socialism? How is it distinct from regulation and a social welfare state? Why are intellectuals still enamored of a system that brought us Stalin, Hitler, and more recently Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-Il? And what can the United States learn from Sweden about free enterprise and capitalism?

Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie sat down with Kevin Williamson, who is deputy managing editor of National Review and author of a new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, to discuss the meaning of socialism in history and the current moment.

I'll never forget the 2008 election. The media Obama circus was something that even I never would have expected to witness in America, truly fit for a third world nation.

One particular incident in early-to-mid 2008 comes to mind. My wife and I made a trip to the local Wal Mart to grab some odds and ends...I meandered by the magazine aisle, my jaw dropped by the spectacle in front of me: every single magazine (home decor, gossip, finance, entertainment, etc.) was plastered with Dear Leader-esque Obamamania propaganda.

Here's one of thousands of examples from that time:

I recall another Time Magazine cover glowingly reading, "When Barry Became Barack."

Three years later not much has changed. The media has created a monster.

Should it come as any surprise that he thinks he's the omnipotent Dear Leader, too?

Obama's statement to a group of youthful supporters his people reveals a recent Dear Leader moment.

President Obama does. That’s what he said toward the end a speech at a campaign fundraiser last night in Washington to a relatively youthful crowd of supporters he was trying spur back toward the energy level of 2008.

He still believes in what he believes, which is also what they believe, he said.

The vision that brought us together in 2008, that’s undiminished in me.

And best of all, our Leader let it be known, thankfully, that he continues to have faith in you and me as well.

The confidence I have in the American people, in their decency, that’s undiminished. My faith that we can make tough choices on behalf of future generations, that’s undiminished.

I'm so glad that His belief in me has not lessened. Also, His blessing makes me feel so safe and happy, I'm grateful that His undiminished faith in me is something I can hold so dearly, especially since we don't have an economy, Constitution, freedom, economic mobility....

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Sen. Scott Brown has announced his intention to support Paul Ryan's budget plan. This comes as a surprise as Sen. Brown is a moderate to liberal republican from Massachusetts, one of the nations most liberal states. I'm content to chalk it up to the Senator finally coming to his senses.

On to the real point of today's post. Rep. Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee delivered a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago highlighting the very real {and serious} fiscal issues facing America today. In a most compelling way Ryan drew the contrast between the progressives {democratic party} vision of shared scarcity and the vision of renewed prosperity shared by the more fiscally responsible conservatives.

Rep. Ryan's speech for the most part will be overlooked by the liberal government/media complex. His speech will be greatly maligned by the progressive/collectivist sites that populate the blogoshere.

Following are highlights of Ryan's speech.

I’ll come to the point. Despite talk of a recovery, the economy is badly underperforming. Growth last quarter came in at just 1.8 percent. We’re not even creating enough jobs to employ new workers entering the job market, let alone the six million workers who lost their jobs during the recession.

The rising cost of living is becoming a serious problem for many Americans. The Fed’s aggressive expansion of the money supply is clearly contributing to major increases in the cost of food and energy.

An even bigger threat comes from the rapidly growing cost of health care, a problem made worse by the health care law enacted last year.

Most troubling of all, the unsustainable trajectory of government spending is accelerating the nation toward a ruinous debt crisis.

This crisis has been decades in the making. Republican administrations, including the last one, have failed to control spending. Democratic administrations, including the present one, have not been honest about the cost of the tax burden required to fund their expansive vision of government. And Congresses controlled by both parties have failed to confront our growing entitlement crisis. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Years of ignoring the drivers of our debt have left our nation’s finances in dismal shape. In the coming years, our debt is projected to grow to more than three times the size of our entire economy.

This trajectory is catastrophic. By the end of the decade, we will be spending 20 percent of our tax revenue simply paying interest on the debt – and that’s according to optimistic projections. If ratings agencies such as S&P move from downgrading our outlook to downgrading our credit, then interest rates will rise even higher, and debt service will cost trillions more.

This course is not sustainable. That isn’t an opinion; it’s a mathematical certainty. If we continue down our current path, we are walking right into the most preventable crisis in our nation’s history.

So the question is, how do we avoid it?

The answer is simple. We have to make responsible choices today, so that our children don’t have to make painful choices tomorrow....

See, right now, we’re finally having a debate in Washington about how to address our fiscal problems. But we’re still not having the debate we need to have.

To an alarming degree, the budget debate has degenerated into a game of green-eyeshade arithmetic, with many in Washington – including the President – demanding that we trade ephemeral spending restraints for large, permanent tax increases.

This sets up a debate in which we are really just arguing over who to hurt and how best to manage the decline of our nation. It is a framework that accepts ever-higher taxes and bureaucratically rationed health care as givens.

I call it the “shared scarcity” mentality. The missing ingredient is economic growth.

Shared scarcity represents a deeply pessimistic vision for the future of this country – one in which we all pay more and we all get less. I believe it would leave us with a nation that is less prosperous and less free.

To begin with, chasing ever-higher spending with ever-higher tax rates will decrease the number of makers in society and increase the number of takers. Able-bodied Americans will be discouraged from working and lulled into lives of complacency and dependency.

Worse – when it becomes obvious that taxing the rich doesn’t generate nearly enough revenue to cover Washington’s empty promises – austerity will be the only course left. A debt-fueled economic crisis will force massive tax increases on everyone and indiscriminate cuts on current beneficiaries – without giving them time to prepare or adjust. And, given the expansive growth of government, many of these critical decisions will fall to bureaucrats we didn’t elect.

First, we have to stop spending money we don’t have, and ultimately that means getting health care costs under control.

Second, we have to restore common sense to the regulatory environment, so that regulations are fair, transparent, and do not inflict undue uncertainty on America’s employers.

Third, we have to keep taxes low and end the year-by-year approach to tax rates, so that job creators have incentives to invest in America; and

Fourth, we have to refocus the Federal Reserve on price stability, instead of using monetary stimulus to bail out Washington’s failures, because businesses and families need sound money.

Let me deal with each in order.

The first foundation, real spending discipline: it’s pretty simple. You can’t get real, sustainable growth by continuing to pile on the debt. More debt means more uncertainty, and more uncertainty means fewer jobs.

The rating agency S&P just downgraded the outlook on U.S. debt from “stable” to “negative.” That sends a signal to job creators. If S&P is telling them that America is a bad investment, they’re not going to expand and create jobs in America – not at the rate we need them to.

Mounting debt also threatens our poorest and most vulnerable citizens, because those who depend most on government would be hit hardest by a fiscal crisis. We have to repair our safety net programs so that they are there for those who need them most. This starts by building on the successful, bipartisan welfare reforms of the mid-1990s.

Our reforms save the social safety net by giving more power to governors to create strong, flexible programs that better serve the needs of their populations. Most important, they make these programs solvent.

As we strengthen welfare for those who need it, we propose to end it for those who don’t. We end wasteful corporate welfare for those such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, big agribusinesses, and others that have gotten a free ride from the taxpayer for too long.

All of these steps are necessary to getting spending under control. But they are not enough. We cannot avert a debt crisis unless we directly address the rising cost of health care.

Getting health care costs under control is critical, both for solving our fiscal mess and for promoting growth. One reason that many people aren’t getting raises is that rising health care costs are eating into their paychecks.

The second foundation addresses the growing scourge of crony capitalism, in which Washington bureaucrats abuse the regulatory process to pick winners and losers in the private economy.

The third foundation recognizes that we cannot get our economy back on track if Washington tries to tax its way out of this mess....

The economics profession has been really clear about this – higher marginal tax rates create a drag on economic growth....

Finally, the fourth foundation calls for rules-based monetary policy to protect working families and seniors from the threat of high inflation.

The foregoing excerpts from Rep. Ryan's speech are just important highlights. There is much more. It is worth taking the time to read the full text of the speech here. Rep. Ryan has put the issue of fiscal responsibility and sanity front and center. In doing so he has done the nation a great service. Now it is up to We the People to keep our elected representatives feet to the fire of fiscal responsibility and the opportunity it provides for our future as a nation.

Now if only Ryan had spent some time on the need to reign in the Military Industrial Complex.